All these fashion models have slightly longish hair

I enjoy looking at fashion magazines sometimes, but I only like a few of the pictures. I look for models that meet the criteria of my grooming rules, for instance, thick unplucked eyebrows, 'unibrows,' or very long hair. (Mustaches are unthinkable. When they do appear on runway fashion models, they're fake and they are part of an 'androgynous' theme, where the women are deliberately supposed to look like men, and it's not meant to be taken seriously, and it's not meant to look natural, and it's not meant to be a way that real women on the streets in the real world are ever going to look.)

You hardly ever see very long hair anywhere. But once in a while you see slightly long hair, such as hip length. Today I was looking at Vogue magazine, the big thick one with the Spring 2011 fashion shows in it.

I flipped through a bunch of pages and was ho-hum about most of it. But then I found Roberto Cavalli's page. Here is what I saw:

http://belarusianmodels.blogspot.com/2010/09/anabela-belikova-at-roberto-cavalli-ss.html

That's just a link to another blog, but that was the easiest web page to use to show the pictures. I also looked on the Vogue website under Roberto Cavalli, but it was hard for my browser to look at the page. They're there too, under Spring 2011.

I was pleasantly surprised to see that all of these models have slightly longish hair. It's so unusual that I wondered if they had extensions added to their hair, if it wasn't their real hair. I'm still not sure if it's real.

There are web pages devoted to very long hair, and those websites would understand me when I scoff at the shortness of waist-length hair. Waist-length hair is 'too short' by my standards, and I see it as 'off to a good start, but still has a long way to go.' Still, waist-length hair is very rare in the fashion industry.

I also liked the stringy fringes on the clothing. I like fur, and the strings resemble fur. They almost look like mermaids draped in wet fabric. The fringes would move and flow like water. It's also like a hair substitute. They don't have floor-length hair, but the fringes substitute for that. If they had very long hair, the hair would hang all over the place and dangle and move like those fringes do.

John William Waterhouse is a painter who loves long hair. http://www.jwwaterhouse.com/paintings/. However, none of his models have any armpit hair or pubic hair, and that's confusing to me, because I've read from other sources that they believe female body shaving only began recently, in about the twentieth century, and those paintings are older than that. Maybe 'normal people' didn't shave until recently. But models might have shaved when they were having their portraits painted. Maybe most people didn't.

Female shaving supposedly began (according to the sources I've read, which I would have to look up again to find them) because razor companies started looking for a way to sell more razors, so they artificially created the idea that women ought to be ashamed of their body hair. Before that, nobody cared, but all of a sudden, the advertisements started brainwashing everyone to believe that they have to spend their money and buy razors.

Long hair is kind of the same way. If you do nothing at all to your hair, you aren't spending any money on beauty products. The beauty products manufacturers want you to keep your hair around shoulder-length because it's 'more versatile for styling.' You can use hair sprays, mousse, gel, de-frizzers, and anything else, but only if your hair is short and layered. If your hair is very long, you don't style it. So the magazines and televisions sell you the image of a short-haired woman ('short' being defined as shoulder length or upper back length, which is the length that almost everyone has) so that you will buy styling products. It's not because short hair is objectively better than long hair. It's because it's easier to use styling products and 'do stuff' to your hair when it's short. It's because we watch television a lot, and all of it is meant to advertise something.

There is one way that short hair is better than long hair: it's physically safer. Short hair is less likely to get tangled in a piece of machinery or something. You could die if your very long hair got tangled in something. Other than that, short hair is mostly just something that the styling product companies want you to have.

Anyway that was my pleasant surprise for the day. I actually liked the way all of those pictures looked in the Vogue magazine on that particular guy's collection, Roberto Cavalli.

How To Train Your Dragon, if I can talk about the movie without forgetting all the plot details

10:07 AM 12/8/10

So this was one of those lies disguised as mistakes. Apparently either I am too incompetent to recognize a Three in a movie, or else 'they' want me to look incompetent and they're putting words in my mouth and making me say things that are wrong, or they want me to discredit the enneagram and make it look like a useless personality typing system where you can interpret anybody as anything you want to believe they are. Whatever.

Anyway, I have been getting harassed by voices the last couple days ever since I mentioned 'How To Train Your Dragon' a few blogs ago. They are telling me that the boy is a Three, not a Nine, and I said he was a Nine.

Maybe all Myers-Briggs ISFPs look like Nines? Now what? They want me to say he's an ISFP? He's probably not. Based on my past record of being totally wrong about every single personality type that I talk about, that's probably NOT what he is.

Then, this morning, they went on to say that this movie is a metaphor for going to war against 'the enemy,' only to find that you feel guilty after hurting someone, and then you want to stay and try to help them and fix the injury you caused. But my response to that is, yes, but, there are people who really are trying to fix the injury we caused in Iraq and Afghanistan, and these people are getting killed and kidnapped when they go over there, and the best way to 'fix the injury' is to get out of the country and leave them alone. Just stop trying to 'do' anything.

I thought the ending of movie wasn't believable... This is a spoiler, if anyone wants to watch the movie and doesn't want to know how it ends. The other metaphor that they mentioned this morning was, we find out that the 'enemies' are attacking us because they have their own parasitic dragon to feed at home. Either that can be interpreted as 'the government,' taxing them and enslaving them the way our government taxes and enslaves us, or else it could be viewed as the wife and kids, since the big dragon was viewed as a female dragon like the queen of the hive.

I thought it was unbelievable, because the dragons, at the end, were all too happy to betray the big queen dragon and kill her and run away and abandon her instead of being loyal and fighting by her side. In real life, there would have been thousands of dragons staying beside her and fighting against the invaders. But in the movie, they were like, 'Hey, someone's here to help us! Yay! Let's get out of the way so they can do their work!' So all the dragons just left, and let the Viking guys kill the Queen, and the trained dragons actually were happy to fight against her. There wasn't a single loyal dragon fighting by her side. (What??? Now I'm not sure about that. I only watched the movie once. Now I think I'm remembering wrong! That can't possibly be true. I have a feeling this is one of those 'wrong memories', 'mistakes,' or 'lies.' They HAD to be fighting more than just the queen dragon by herself. I am remembering it wrong.)

Even Saddam Hussein had loyal supporters whenever the USA went to attack him. Besides, if Saddam Hussein was going to be the metaphor for the queen dragon, then we would have to include the fact that it was the USA who had Saddam Hussein put on the throne in the first place! Oops, was that a Wikileak? No, Harry Browne talked about that on his website. It's something a lot of the libertarians know about. It's public knowledge that, several decades ago, the USA was responsible for PUTTING Saddam Hussein there as the leader of Iraq. He wasn't just freely elected. He was a USA puppet.

There are websites that have a record of all the attacks that the USA was waging on Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries LONG BEFORE the USA was 'suddenly and unexpectedly attacked out of nowhere for no reason at all' when they destroyed the Twin Towers. So actually this metaphor for the queen dragon and the small dragons doesn't match up to the real war.

Anyway I thought the ending was unbelievable.

Speaking of which, I went to see Harry Potter again, and 'they' pointed out that the reason why Ron wasn't allowed to shout Hermione's name while she was being tortured was because it would have drowned out the dialogue of the other characters. It would have been too loud to hear the other people talking with each other. I disagree. I think it should have been fitted in there somewhere. I mentioned that because I was complaining that the scene was unbelievable when Ron didn't seem all that upset or frantic.

So, the queen dragon had:
1. No loyal supporters, not a single one (This has to be a 'wrong memory.' I only watched the movie once, and this is what I remember.)
2. Some of the dragons, the 'trained' ones, actually FOUGHT AGAINST her, willingly, but
3. Most of the dragons simply disappeared. They flew away.

It wasn't like the Vikings had superior technology. They didn't have much technology at all. They had inferior technology. The dragons were able to fly, breathe fire, and do all that stuff. So they wouldn't have been very afraid of the Vikings. It would be like some people from a foreign country walking up to one of the government offices in Washington DC, and banging on the front door, and pointing guns at them. Yes, if that happens, the people being attacked would be scared, but there would be thousands and thousands of other people surrounding them, in seconds, with bigger guns and better technology. The Viking attack on the queen dragon was like that. All of the loyal defenders wouldn't just run away. Attacking the queen dragon was way too easy in the movie.

Now I'm not sure. And I am not going to run right out and rent the movie again to make sure that I have my facts straight. You know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of that column in 'The Onion' (which I haven't read in a really, really long time), where there's that guy, Jackie Harvey or something, I forget his name, and he talks about movies and movie stars and pop culture, but he gets everything totally backwards. You can't believe anything he says because a lot of it is random nonsense or the exact opposite of the truth.

I miss the bookkeeper guy who was fighting in the gang war between Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable as they tried to annihilate each other. Supposedly he died in the line of duty. Herbert Kromwell or something, that's almost his name. Kornfeld? Something like that. I haven't read 'The Onion' in a long time.

Well, anyway. Just about everything I've said about 'How To Train Your Dragon' is wrong. I've got the wrong personality type for the main characters, and now, I'm remembering the plot details wrong, too. So maybe I would like the movie more if I watched it again. That often happens. I am probably going to have to take back everything I said.